class action complaint for - consumerist · class action complaint for: (1) ... most commonly...

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Lee A. Cirsch (SBN 227668) [email protected] Robert K. Friedl (SBN 134947) [email protected] Trisha K. Monesi (SBN 303512) [email protected] Capstone Law APC 1875 Century Park East, Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90067 Telephone: (310) 556-4811 Facsimile: (310) 943-0396 Francis J. Flynn, Jr. (SBN 304712) Law Office of Francis J. Flynn, Jr. 6220 West Third Street, #115 Los Angeles, CA 90036 [email protected] Telephone: (323) 424-4194 Attorneys for Plaintiff Julian Metter

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JULIAN METTER, individually, and on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant.

Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR: (1) Violations of Unfair Competition Law,

California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.

(2) Violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act

(3) Violations of California Civil Code § 1671

(4) Unjust Enrichment DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Case 3:16-cv-06652-RS Document 1 Filed 11/16/16 of 23


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiff Julian Metter (“Plaintiff”) brings this action for himself and on behalf

of all persons in the United States who have utilized the ride-sharing services (“Riders”)

offered by Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Defendant” or “Uber”) and unfairly and unlawfully

incurred a cancellation fee imposed by Defendant.

2. Uber’s cancellation fees are arbitrarily imposed against Riders who are not

informed in advance of contracting for a ride that such fees, including the specific amount of

the fees, may be automatically charged to their credit cards. The fees are imposed in

situations both where Riders intend to cancel the requested rides and, remarkably, even when

the Riders have no desire to cancel the requested ride.

3. Specifically, the cancellation fees are imposed when Riders intend to cancel a

ride but fail to do so within the 2-5 minute time limit in which they are required to do so

because they are not aware that such a time limit exists until it is too late. The fees are also

imposed when the Rider has no intent to cancel but, through no fault of the Rider, the Uber

driver is delayed, unable to fulfill the ride request, or chooses not to fulfill the ride request

after accepting it and the Rider is forced at the behest of the driver to cancel the ride on the

Rider’s mobile device and request a different Uber driver.

4. On information and belief, Uber penalizes its drivers by deactivating their

account and subsequently prevents them from driving for Uber, if an Uber driver has a low

ride-acceptance rate due to too many driver-initiated cancellations (i.e. when the Uber driver

depresses the “Driver Requested Cancel” function on his/her mobile device as opposed to the

“Rider Requested Cancel” button). As such, when an Uber driver cannot complete a ride

he/she accepted or chooses not to do so, most commonly during “surge pricing”1 times, Uber

1 “Surge pricing is when fares temporarily increase to encourage more drivers to get on

the road and head to areas of the city where demand for rides is high. Fares may surge when many riders are requesting pickup in an area of the city. Surge is designed to ensure you can request and receive a quick pickup anytime…In some cities, before you request a ride, your app will display any current surge multiplier as a whole number and decimal. Surge multiplies the base, time, and distance of your trip fare. Cancellation fees, tolls, and per-trip surcharges are not subject to surge pricing. For example, a surge multiplier of 1.2x applied to a trip fare that would normally cost $5 would result in a trip fare of $6 ($5 x 1.2x).” See “What is surge



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

actually incentivizes its drivers to cancel the Rider’s request by depressing the “Rider

Requested Cancel” function or by requesting the Rider to cancel from the Rider’s mobile

device. In either scenario, Riders automatically and unknowingly incur a cancellation fee if

the 2-5 minute time period to cancel has passed; meanwhile, Uber drivers are not penalized

for initiating the ride request cancellation and thus avoid Uber deactivation by maintaining an

artificially low number of Driver Requested Cancellations.

5. While Uber asserts that the automatic cancellation fees it charges Riders are

“intended to compensate driver-partners for time and effort spent heading toward a pick-up

location,” the reality is that Uber profits from these fees because, like any other fare, Uber, on

information and belief, takes 25% of the cancellation fee even though it is “intended” only to

compensate Uber drivers. This incentivizes Uber to continue this profitable business practice

rather than revise its Cancellation Fee Policy to make it fair to Riders, or eliminate it

altogether. Uber’s automatic cancellation fees, and entire cancellation fee practices, are

arbitrarily and unfairly imposed to the sole detriment of Riders (but to the benefit of Uber) and

therefore must be stopped.

6. Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known all material information

regarding Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy, then Plaintiff and the other Class Members

would not have utilized Uber’s ride-sharing services or would not have cancelled a pending

ride request. Plaintiff and other Riders were harmed and suffered actual damages in that they

incurred, and continue to incur, unlawful cancellation fees.

THE PARTIES

7. Plaintiff Julian Metter (“Plaintiff”) is a citizen of the state of California,

residing in Los Angeles California.

8. Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc. is a corporation organized and in existence

under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered to do business in the State of

California. Uber Technologies, Inc. Corporate Headquarters are located at 1455 Market

pricing?,” Uber Help, https://help.uber.com/.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Street, 4th

Floor, San Francisco, California.

9. At all relevant times, Defendant was and is engaged in the business of

arranging ride-share services via its mobile application and website in San Francisco County

and throughout the United States of America.

JURISDICTION

10. This is a class action.

11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 1331 because this action arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States and the

Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2) and (6), in that, as to each Class defined

herein:

(a) the matter in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00, exclusive of interest

and costs;

(b) this is a class action involving 100 or more class members; and

(c) this is a class action in which at least one member of the Plaintiff class

is a citizen of a State different from at least one Defendant.

12. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant, which have at least

minimum contacts with the State of California because they have conducted business there

and have availed themselves of California’s markets through their ride-sharing services.

VENUE

13. Uber, through its ride-sharing business has established sufficient contacts in

this district such that personal jurisdiction is appropriate. Defendant is deemed to reside in

this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a).

14. In addition, Defendant is headquartered here and/or has conducted business

here and has availed itself of California’s markets through its marketing, sale, and

administration of ride-sharing services. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

1391(a).

//



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy

15. Uber provides a ride-sharing service whereby Riders are able to request private

drivers through its application available for download on iPhone, Android, and other similar

devices. In order to request an Uber driver, the Rider must enter a pickup location and

destination (Screen 1). The next screen informs the Rider of the total fare for the ride, which

the Rider must accept in order to complete the ride request (Screen 2). The fare is

automatically charged to the Rider’s credit card saved to the Uber application at the end of the

ride.

Screen 1: Screen 2:

16. Once the Rider requests a ride on the application, Uber’s software uses geo-

location technology to alert nearby Uber drivers of the Rider’s request (Screen 3). Once an

Uber driver accepts the ride request, the alert is disabled for other drivers and the Rider is

notified through the application of the approximate time until the driver’s arrival, which varies

depending on the location of the driver and traffic conditions (Screen 4).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Screen 3: Screen 4:

17. There are a number of ways an Uber ride request can be cancelled prior to the

time the driver picks up the Rider. An Uber Rider may cancel a ride request through the Uber

Application by hitting the Uber drivers name and then pressing “Cancel” (Screen 5). An Uber

Driver may also cancel a ride request. Uber drivers have the option of hitting “Rider

Requested Cancel” to cancel a ride, which charges a cancellation fee to the Rider.

Alternatively, Uber drivers can cancel a ride by selecting “Driver Requested Cancel” at any

time prior to pick up.

Rider Requested Cancellation

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that Uber has a

uniform policy of automatically imposing a cancellation fee to its Riders, in varying amounts

based on the Rider’s geographic location, if the Rider(or Uber driver, by selecting the “Rider

Requested Cancel” button) cancels the accepted ride request after two or five minutes.

19. During the class period alleged herein, Plaintiff and other Riders were not

informed by the Uber application at any time of this policy and only discovered a cancellation



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

fee had been assessed through subsequent receipt of an email from Uber.

20. Recently, Uber changed its policy to advise Riders, within its mobile phone

application, of the potential imposition of cancellation fees. However, Riders are not

informed of the potential cancellation fee until after they have already requested the ride, the

Uber driver has accepted the request, and the Rider has selected the cancellation button to

cancel the ride request (Screens 5 and 6).2 Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and other Riders, the 2-5

minute grace period may have already elapsed, triggering a cancellation fee.

Screen 5: Screen 6:

21. Moreover, Plaintiff and other Riders remain unaware of the actual amount of

the cancellation fee until their credit card has been charged and a receipt is provided to the

Rider’s email address because the Uber application never specifies what the amount of the

cancellation fee will be. Screen 6, above, only generically indicates that a fee may apply and

then directs the Rider to Uber’s website for additional information (uber.com/cities).

22. However, Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy is not apparent from visiting

2 On information and belief, Riders do not receive a message indicating that they

incurred or may incur a cancellation fee if the driver cancels on his/her mobile device application by selecting either “Driver Requested Cancel” or “Rider Requested Cancel.”



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

uber.com/cities, as the Uber application and Screen 6 above indicate. The webpage provided

merely consists of a list of the cities around the globe where Uber operates its ride-sharing

business. The Rider would need to navigate to this webpage, click on the city where he/she is

located, and then click through a number of other “Help” links and webpages to get to the

precise page in the help.uber.com section that generically discusses Uber’s cancellation policy

(See Paragraph 25, below). Further, the Rider would need to complete the above search

within the first 2-5 minutes of an Uber driver accepting the ride-request in order to not incur a

cancellation fee.3

23. Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy is also not apparent from its Terms and

Conditions which fails to mention or disclose any details regarding the potential incurrence of

a cancellation fee or disclose any details regarding its cancellation fees, including the length

of time provided to Riders prior to incurring a fee or the amount of the fee to be incurred.

Instead, the sum total of the discussion of Cancellation Fees consists of one clause hidden

within the Payment Section where Uber states:

You may elect to cancel your request for services or goods from a Third Party

Provider at any time prior to such Third Party Provider's arrival, in which case

you may be charged a cancellation fee.

See, Terms & Conditions.4

24. Additional fees and penalties that Riders may incur are separately and

conspicuously stated outside the Payment section. For example, Uber may charge its Riders

with a repair or cleaning fee that it separately discloses and details in its Terms & Conditions

under the Repair or Cleaning Fees section.

25. Only after a Rider has been charged a cancellation fee, or if the Rider is

fortunate enough to locate the cancellation fee information within the 2-5 minutes allotted,

does the Rider learn any information about Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy. However, to this

day, Uber neither discloses the precise period of time in which a rider can cancel the ride

3 https://www.uber.com/cities (Last visited: November 10, 2016)

4 https://www.uber.com/legal/terms/us/ (Last visited: November 10, 2016)



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

without incurring a cancellation fee nor the precise amount of the cancellation fee. Uber only

states:

While the Uber app allows you to cancel anytime, a cancellation fee may be

charged. The cancellation fee amount differs and ranges from $5 to $10. This

fee is intended to compensate driver-partners for time and effort spent heading

toward a pickup location.5 A ride request can be cancelled free of charge for up

to 2-5 minutes after your initial request. If your driver is running more than 5

minutes behind the provided ETA, you can cancel the ride request without

incurring a cancellation fee.6

26. The Uber Rider is not aware of the precise amount of the cancellation fee until

the Rider receives and reads an email from Uber or the Rider’s credit or debit card statement.

The email receipt from Uber, once read, provides information regarding disputing the

cancellation fee. But on many occasions, the Rider may not discover the email receipt until

much later due to its redirection to a “Spam” folder or the Rider’s limited access to email or

for other reasons. In addition, disputing the cancellation fee requires a Rider to expend

additional time on Uber’s website to select the cancelled trip and submit the reason for

disputing the fee, without any assurance that the cancellation fee will be automatically

reversed, justifying that expense of time. Further, it is apparent from the following reasons for

cancellation provided to Riders who dispute cancellation fees that Uber knows about and

ratifies its policy in which a driver cancels on a Rider and the Rider subsequently incurs a fee

despite never initiating a cancellation:

My driver cancelled

My driver asked me to cancel

5 While Uber asserts that the fee “is intended to compensate driver-partners for time

and effort spent heading toward a pick-up location”, the reality is that Uber profits from these fees because, like any other fare, Uber, on information and belief, takes 25% of the cancellation fee even though it is “intended” only to compensate driver-partners.

6 Cancellation Fees, Uber Help, https://help.uber.com/.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Driver Requested Cancellations

27. Uber drivers are also able to cancel a ride by selecting “Driver Requested

Cancel” on the Uber application at any time prior to pick-up, in which case a Rider should not

be assessed a cancellation fee. However, Uber drivers are penalized for initiating too many

Driver Requested Cancellations. If an Uber driver initiates Driver Requested Cancellations

for any reason, his/her acceptance rate with Uber declines.7 If a driver’s Uber acceptance rate

drops to a certain level, Uber can deactivate the driver’s account without notice, temporarily

or permanently.

28. On information and belief, Uber’s uniform policies and practices encourage its

drivers to either unilaterally and falsely select “Rider Requested Cancel” on the driver’s Uber

application (causing Riders to be automatically assessed a cancellation fee without initiating

the cancellation) or to instruct the Rider to select “Cancel” from his/her mobile device’s Uber

application and request a new Uber driver. Both scenarios cause the Rider to be charged a

cancellation fee through no fault of their own. This practice allows drivers to renege on

accepted ride-requests prior to picking up a first ride-request if they receive another, more

lucrative, second ride-request while in route. The driver and Uber thus capitalize on the

cancellation fee from the first ride-request and the more lucrative second ride-request while

the first Rider is left with an unwarranted cancellation fee and must request and wait for

another driver.

29. Uber acknowledges and states the impact of deactivation on Uber drivers and

further acknowledges that frequent Driver Requested Cancellations can result in the

deactivation of an Uber Driver’s Account:

When a driver’s account is deactivated, even if only temporarily, it limits their

ability to earn income. So it’s important to have a clear, published policy that

explains: the circumstances in which drivers are denied access to Uber; how (if

at all) they can use the app again; and if drivers can appeal these decisions.[1]

There will always be unforeseen events that may ultimately lead to deactivation

- and we’ll update this policy regularly - but the following are sufficient cause

7 http://therideshareguy.com/uber-deactivated-a-bunch-of-drivers-as-an-intimidation-

tactic/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2016).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

for deactivation: quality; fraud; safety and discrimination.8

30. Further, with respect to Quality, Uber states “[t]here are several ways we

measure driver quality, with the most important being Star Ratings and Cancellation Rate.”9

31. With respect to Cancellation Rate, Uber has the following policy:

Cancellation Rate

A driver cancellation is when a driver accepts a trip request and then cancels the

trip. Cancellations create a poor rider experience and negatively affect other

drivers. We understand that there may be times when something comes up that

causes a driver to cancel an accepted trip, but minimizing cancellations is

critical for the reliability of the system.

How is my cancellation rate calculated? Your cancellation rate is based on the

number of trips cancelled out of the total number of trips you accept. (For

example, if you’ve accepted 100 trips and 4 of them are cancelled, your

cancellation rate would be 4%.)

High-quality drivers typically have a low cancellation rate less than 5%.

What leads to deactivation? Each city has a maximum cancellation rate, based

on the average cancellation rate of drivers in that area. We will alert you

multiple times if your cancellation rate is much higher or if you are consistently

cancelling more often than other drivers in your city, after which you may not

be able to go online for a short period of time. If your cancellation rate

continues to exceed the maximum limit, your account may be deactivated.10

32. In summary, Uber fails to disclose to Riders its Cancellation Fee Policy prior to

Riders completing their ride requests. Riders remain unaware of the possible cancellation fee

until after the grace period has ended and are either forced to incur the cancellation fee or

continue with the unwanted ride. Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy fails to provide the actual or

possible fee amount or how Riders can discern the fee amount through Uber’s website or

mobile application. Riders would have to spend a significant amount of time on Uber’s

website just to find the Cancellation Fee Policy, which then fails to list the cities subject to

cancellation fees, the amount of the fees incurred per city, or the grace period allotted per ci ty.

8 See Driver Deactivation Policy - US ONLY,

https://www.uber.com/legal/deactivation-policy/us-en/ (last visited Nov. 10, 2016). 9 Id.

10Id.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Uber also incentivizes its drivers to not use the “Driver Requested Cancel” function when the

driver cannot or chooses not to perform the pick-up he or she previously accepted, but to

instead use the “Rider Requested Cancel” function or to verbally request that the Rider cancel

the request and re-request another Uber driver, whereby the Rider is assessed a cancellation

fee through no fault of their own.

B. Plaintiff Julian Metter

33. On or about August 7, 2015, in Seattle, Washington, Plaintiff requested an

Uber ride service at a specific location. When the Uber ride service did not appear at that

specific location after more than five minutes, Plaintiff contacted the Uber driver. The Uber

driver informed Plaintiff that he could not get to that specific location and that Plaintiff

needed to cancel the current ride request on Plaintiff’s mobile device and request another ride

with a different Uber driver. Plaintiff complied and canceled the ride request on his mobile

device and initiated another request. The second Uber driver arrived at Plaintiff’s location

and took him to his destination. Later, Plaintiff learned that he had been charged a $5.00

cancellation fee when he checked his email.

34. At no point prior to checking his email, had Plaintiff been informed from the

first or second Uber drivers or from the Uber application on his mobile device that he was

going to be assessed a cancellation fee of $5. If Plaintiff and Riders knew that Uber would

automatically impose cancellation fees without first disclosing them to Plaintiff and Riders

(and that they only had a very limited window in which to cancel without a fee), and that they

would be assessed a fee even when they did not intend to cancel a ride request, they would not

have utilized Uber’s ride-sharing services or would not have canceled their ride request on

their mobile device.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

35. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of himself and all others

similarly situated as members of the proposed Class pursuant to pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 23(a), 23(b)(2), 23(b)(3), and 23(c)(4). This action satisfies the numerosity,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those

provisions.

36. The Class and Sub-Class are defined as:

Nationwide Class: All individuals in the United States who utilized Uber’s ride-sharing services and incurred a cancellation fee (the “Nationwide Class” or “Class”).

California Sub-Class: All members of the Nationwide Class who reside in the State of California.

CLRA Sub-Class: All members of the California Sub-Class who are “consumers” within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(d).

37. Excluded from the Class and Sub-Classes are: (1) Defendant, any entity or

division in which Defendant has a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers,

directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s

staff; (3) any Judge sitting in the presiding state and/or federal court system who may hear an

appeal of any judgment entered; and (4) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as

a result of the facts alleged herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class and Sub-

Class definitions if discovery and further investigation reveal that the Class and Sub-Class

should be expanded or otherwise modified.

38. Numerosity: Although the exact number of Class Members is uncertain and

can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the number is great enough such that

joinder is impracticable. The disposition of the claims of these Class Members in a single

action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. The Class Members are

readily identifiable from information and records in Defendant’s possession, custody, or

control.

39. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that

Plaintiff, like all Class Members, utilized Uber’s ride-sharing services and incurred a

cancellation fee. The representative Plaintiff, like all Class Members, has been damaged by

Defendant’s misconduct in that they have incurred or will incur an unlawful cancellation fee.

Furthermore, the factual bases of Uber’s misconduct are common to all Class Members and



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

represent a common thread resulting in injury to all Class Members.

40. Commonality: There are numerous questions of law and fact common to

Plaintiff and the Class that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class

Members. These common legal and factual issues include the following:

(a) Whether Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy is an unlawful, unfair or

fraudulent business act or practice in violation of California Business &

Professions Code §§ 17200 et seq.

(b) Whether Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy is untrue or misleading in

violation of and California Business & Professions Code §§17500;

(c) Whether Uber knew or should have known that Uber’s Cancellation Fee

Policy is untrue or misleading in violation of and California Business &

Professions Code §§17500;

(d) Whether the grace period and fee amount of Uber’s Cancellation Fee

Policy constitutes a material fact;

(e) Whether Defendant has a duty to disclose the grace period and fee

amount of its Cancellation Fee Policy to Riders prior to cancelling the

ride request;

(f) Whether Uber’s Cancellation Fee Policy violates the CLRA;

(g) Whether Defendant’s cancellation fee is a liquidated damage;

(h) Whether Plaintiff and other Class Members are entitled to equitable

relief, including but not limited to a preliminary and/or permanent

injunction; and

(i) Whether Defendant is obligated to inform Class Members of their right

to seek reimbursement for having paid a cancellation fee.

41. Adequate Representation: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the

interests of the Class Members. Plaintiff has retained attorneys experienced in the prosecution

of class actions, including consumer and product defect class actions, and Plaintiffs intend to



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

prosecute this action vigorously.

42. Predominance and Superiority: Plaintiff and Class Members have all suffered

and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendant’s unlawful and

wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and

efficient adjudication of the controversy. Absent a class action, most Class Members would

likely find the cost of litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no

effective remedy at law. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class

Members’ claims, it is likely that only a few Class Members could afford to seek legal redress

for Defendant’s misconduct. Absent a class action, Class Members will continue to incur

damages, and Defendant’s misconduct will continue without remedy. Class treatment of

common questions of law and fact would also be a superior method to multiple individual

actions or piecemeal litigation in that class treatment will conserve the resources of the courts

and the litigants, and will promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.)

43. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations contained in each and every

paragraph of this Complaint.

44. Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and on behalf of the

Nationwide Class.

45. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s omissions, Riders utilizing

Defendant’s ride-sharing services suffered an ascertainable loss of money due to Defendant’s

Cancellation Fee.

46. California Business & Professions Code § 17200 prohibits acts of “unfair

competition,” including any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business act or practice” and

“unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”

47. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who expect to be

informed of the length of the grace period and cancellation fee amount prior to being



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

automatically charged a cancellation fee. Defendant knew, but failed to inform Plaintiffs and

Class Members, of the applicable grace period allotted and cancellation fee amounts to be

charged per city of operation prior to Plaintiff and Class Members incurring cancellation fees

per Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy.

48. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who expect to not be

charged a cancellation fee when the driver asks them to cancel their ride. Defendant knew but

failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of this fact.

49. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who expect to not be

charged a cancellation fee when the cancellation is made by the driver. Defendant knew but

failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of this fact.

50. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who do not expect an

Uber Driver to be able to initiate a Rider Requested Cancellation without their consent.

Defendant knew but failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class Members of this fact.

51. Defendant knew the applicable grace period allotted and cancellation fee

amounts to be charged per city of operation prior to Plaintiff and Class Members incurring

cancellation fees per Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy.

52. In failing to disclose the grace period allotted and cancellation fee amount prior

to automatically charging Plaintiff and Class Members’ method of payment , Defendant has

knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.

53. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose grace

period allotted and cancellation fee amount, and other omitted facts alleged herein, because:

(a) Defendant was in a superior position to know the specifics of its

Cancellation Fee Policy;

(b) Defendant made partial disclosures about its Cancellation Fee Policy

without revealing the material information needed to determine whether

to incur a cancellation fee; and

(c) Defendant actively concealed the specific Cancellation Fee Policy from



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff and the Class.

54. The facts Defendant concealed from or did not disclose to Plaintiffs and Class

Members are material in that a reasonable person would have considered them to be important

in deciding whether to utilize Uber’s ride-sharing services or cancel a pending ride request.

Had Plaintiff and other Class Members known all material information regarding Defendant’s

Cancellation Fee Policy, then Plaintiff and the other Class Members would not have utilized

Uber’s ride-sharing services or would not have cancelled a pending ride request.

55. In failing to allow the Uber Rider to give a reason for cancellation prior to

cancelling the ride to avoid a fee, and instead automatically charging Plaintiff and the Class

Member’s method of payment without knowing the reason the ride was cancelled, Defendant

has engaged in an unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and/or deceptive trade practice.

56. By failing to disclose the material fact that an Uber-Driver is able to cancel a

ride request without an Uber-Rider incurring a cancellation fee, Defendant has engaged in an

unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and/or deceptive trade practice.

57. By instituting a policy that prevents an Uber Rider from cancelling a ride

without giving the reasons for the cancellation, Defendant has engaged in an unfair and

deceptive trade practice an unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and/or deceptive trade practice.

58. By implementing and charging a cancellation fee that has no reasonable

relationship to the cost of actual value of lost time and effort spent heading toward a pick-up

location, Uber has engaged in an unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and/or deceptive trade practice.

59. By charging a cancellation fee that is, sometimes, more than the original

estimated cost of the trip, Uber has engaged in an unfair, unlawful, fraudulent, and/or

deceptive trade practice.

60. Defendant continues to employ these unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and/or

fraudulent practices as alleged herein.

61. Defendant’s conduct was and is likely to deceive consumers.

62. Defendant’s conduct is unfair because it offends an established public policy



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that one should not be charged for cancelling an order when the supplier has not met the terms

of its agreement. It should be the other way around.

63. Defendant’s acts, conduct and practices were unlawful, in that they constituted:

(a) Violations of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act;

(b) Violations of California Civil Code § 1671;

64. By its conduct, Defendant has engaged in unfair competition and unlawful,

unfair, and fraudulent business practices.

65. Defendant’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices occurred repeatedly in

Defendant’s trade or business, and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the

public.

66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair and deceptive practices,

Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages.

67. Defendant has been unjustly enriched and should be required to make

restitution to Plaintiff and the Class pursuant to §§ 17203 and 17204 of the Business &

Professions Code.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act,

California Civil Code § 1750 et seq.)




members of the CLRA Sub-Class.

70. Defendant is a “person” as defined by California Civil Code § 1761(c).

71. Plaintiff and CLRA Sub-class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of

California Civil Code § 1761(d) because they utilized Defendant’s ride-shares services for

personal, family, or household use.

72. Defendant violated California Civil Code § 1770(a)(5), (7), (9), (14) and/or



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(19) by engaging in one the business acts or practices alleged above in connection with the

sale of goods or services to Plaintiff and the CLRA Class Members.

73. As a result of their reliance on Defendant’s unfair methods of competition

and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices, Riders utilizing Defendant’s ride-sharing services

suffered an ascertainable loss of money due to Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy.

74. Defendant was under a duty to Plaintiff and Class Members to disclose the

material terms of its Cancellation Fee Policy because:

(a) Defendant was in a superior position to know the specifics of its

Cancellation Fee Policy;

(b) Plaintiff and Class Members could not reasonably have been expected to

learn or discover the specifics of Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy

until fees were incurred;

(c) Defendant knew that Plaintiffs and Class Members could not reasonably

have been expected to learn of or discover the specifics of the

Cancellation Fee Policy.

75. In failing to disclose the material Cancellation Policy terms prior to

automatically charging Plaintiff and Class Members’ method of payment, Defendant has

knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.

76. The facts Defendant concealed from or failed to disclose to Plaintiff and Class

Members are material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them to be

important in deciding whether to to utilize Uber’s ride-sharing services or cancel a pending

ride request.

77. Plaintiff and Class Members are reasonable consumers who expect to be

informed of and agree to the material terms surrounding the cancellation prior to being

automatically charged a cancellation fee.

78. As a result of Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed

and suffered actual damages in that, on information and belief, they incurred unlawful



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cancellation fees.

79. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s unfair methods of competition

and/or unfair and deceptive practices, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue

to suffer actual damages.

80. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to equitable relief.

81. Plaintiff provided Defendant with notice of its violations of the CLRA pursuant

to California Civil Code § 1782(a). If Defendant fails to provide appropriate relief for its

violations of the CLRA within 30 days, Plaintiff will seek monetary, compensatory, and

punitive damages, in addition to injunctive and equitable relief.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of California Civil Code § 1671(d))




Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the California Sub-Class, against

Defendant.

84. The cancellation fees per Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy are

impermissible liquidated damages under California Civil Code § 1671(d).

85. Defendant and Class Members are parties to a ride-share services contract

formed for services primarily for Class Members’ personal, family, or household purposes

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c)(1)). As such, California Civil Code § 1671(d) states, “In the cases

described in subdivision (c), a provision in a contract liquidating damages for the breach of

the contract is void except that the parties to such a contract may agree therein upon an

amount which shall be presumed to be the amount of damage sustained by a breach thereof,

when, from the nature of the case, it would be impracticable or extremely difficult to fix the

actual damage.” (Emphasis added).

86. Defendant’s Cancellation Fee Policy imposes a fixed and certain amount of



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

compensation to Uber’s drivers in the event of a breach of contract (cancelled ride) and is a

liquidated damage under California law.

87. Defendant’s imposition and collection of cancellation fees on and from Plaintiff

and Class Members violates, and has violated, California Civil Code § 1671(d). Pursuant to §

1671(d), Plaintiff seeks an order of the Court preliminarily and permanently enjoining Uber

from further enforcement and collection of cancellation fees as alleged herein.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(For Unjust Enrichment)




Nationwide Class, or, in the alternative, on behalf of the California Sub-Class, against

Defendant.

90. Uber has been unjustly enriched as a result of the conduct described in this

Complaint.

91. Uber has received a benefit from Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class, or, in the

alternative, on behalf of the California Sub-Class members in the form of payment for

cancellation fees, and Uber retained some, if not all, of these payments.

92. Retention of these payments by Uber would be unjust and inequitable.

93. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s cancellation fee policies and

practices, as detailed throughout this Complaint, Defendant has profited through the collection

of said cancellation fees paid to itself and its agents.

94. Defendant has therefore been unjustly enriched due its collection of unlawful

cancellation fees that earned interest or otherwise added to Defendant’s profits when said

money should have remained with Plaintiff and Class Members.

95. As a result of the Defendant’s unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and Class Members

have suffered damages.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

RELIEF REQUESTED

96. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, and all others similarly situated, requests the

Court to enter judgment against Defendant, as follows:

(a) An order certifying the proposed Class and Sub-Classes, designating

Plaintiff as named representative of the Class, and designating the

undersigned as Class Counsel;

(a) An order enjoining Defendant from further deceptive business practices

with respect to its Cancellation Fee Policy;

(b) An order enjoining Defendant from enforcing and collecting

cancellation fees;

(c) A declaration requiring Defendant to reform its Cancellation Fee Policy,

in a manner deemed to be appropriate by the Court, to cover the injury

alleged and to notify all Class Members that such policy has been

reformed;

(d) An award to Plaintiff and the Class for compensatory, exemplary, and

statutory damages, including interest, in an amount to be proven at trial;

(e) A declaration that Defendant must disgorge, for the benefit of the Class,

all or part of the ill-gotten fees it collected from its Cancellation Fee

policy, or make full restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members;

(f) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs, as allowed by law;

(g) An award of attorneys’ fees and costs pursuant to California Code of

Civil Procedure § 1021.5;

(h) An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by

law; and

(i) Such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

97. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b) and Northern District of


class action complaint for - consumerist · class action complaint for: (1) ... most commonly...

Documents